[laughter] >> acquired taste. >> do think that if you become a democrat to run for president, does that hurt you with not only our constituents in vermont but people around the country who may vote or you and like the fact you are not affiliated with a party? >> i think some could be wrong but i think in the last election, in vermont, we got about 25% of the republican vote. i think that a lot of working-class republicans who are not uncomfortable with what i am saying. i think in vermont and around the country, you have a norm is numbers of people to say, you're not a democrat? you're not a republican? i do not know what you stand for, but i'm with you. i'm getting bolder and bolder trying to figure these things out.

i am not mr. bloomberg of new york and i do not have millions of dollars. to try to put together an independent, political effort, you would not be spent at a norma's amount of time and money and energy getting on the ballot. will the media cover you if you run as independent? these are some of the issues we are wrestling. >> i want to close by saying he was for the left wing of the possible. i think senator sanders is pushing the definition of the possible and i think 10 -- thank him and all of you for a very enlightening explanation of what can be done. thank you very much. [applause]

>> federal health officials will testify about vaccines and the reemergence of certain preventable diseases. we also hear from pediatric infectious disease specialist dr. michael sawyer. on his c-span3, former senators bob hack would and bill bradley, both of whom are part of an idea d6 tax deal with president reagan will be at the senate

finance committee. they will talk about possible changes to the u.s. tax code. that is at 10:00 eastern. a bobby jindal tells a group of reporters he is in favor of supplying the grainy and government with weapons. he is also asked about a possible white house run. the christian science monitor posted this one hour event. >> thank you for coming. bobby jindal has been our guest twice before, most recently in september. i'm glad he agreed to come back. he graduated from brown

university at age 20 with degrees in biology and public college and study.doc for -- studied at oxnard. after working briefly, he became -- at 27, he became executive director of the national bipartisan commission on the future of medicare. then came a two-year tour as president of the university of louisiana, which to president bush nominating and at age 30 as assistant secretary of health and human services. he ran and lost the race for governor in 2003 but do thousand four, was elected to the house the first indian-american elected to the house since 1956. he was elected governor in 2007 at 36. the unrest in the nation at that time and was reelected with $.60 -- 66% of the vote in october

2014. he is the father of three young children. please give us time to listen to what our guest says. to help you resist that were listed selfie urge -- that relentless selfie urge, we will e-mail pictures as soon as the talk ends. we will move to questions around the table after opening comments. >> there was a big sign at the

hotel gym this morning saying, no cell phones allowed. they said, only so please allowed -- selfies allowed. anyway, i was here previously. our foreign policy, investing in defense, as well as on repealing and replacing obama care and a more conservative approach to health care. today i am here with our fourth paper talking about k through 12 education reform. there are many reasons we should be concerned about the status of education. another report over the weekend talking about if america were to close the gap of where we are today in canada over the next several years we could add trillions trillions of dollars to our economy.

there is a report from stanford university talking about the fact that if we had better teachers in our classrooms, a more effective teacher can improve the average earning of that student by thousands of dollars. better teachers can do things like not only increase average earnings but also reduce teenage pregnancy rates and increase the odds those children will go on to college. there are many, many reasons. i won't belabor this. there are many reasons why america lags behind other countries on national comparisons. there was a time when our education system was the envy of the world, just as there was a time when making model t's was the envy of the world.

just as other sectors of our economy has adapted and changed, so too has our educational system changed. it no longer makes sense to use a top-down, one-size-fits all approach. i also make the argument, it is not just economic reasons we should care about education. there is a lot of talk about what this can do for our economy. as a self-governing public, it is essential we teach the next generation to be informed citizens. that is the ability to make decisions when they vote for the rest of us. there is a moral imperative why we should care about the quality of education being offered in our country. we offer three main themes of how do we improve education in america. it is fashionable to say we have quality education in america. it sounds good and we all like to believe the circumstances of your birth don't influence your education. the problem is, it is not true. if you are wealthy, you are likely to move to neighborhoods with great schools or have the ability to save the dollars you need to send your kids to private school. it is disproportionate to low income families that are trapped in failing schools that don't have the opportunity to get a greater education. that is absolutely critical that the circumstances of your birth don't influence your education. one of the biggest obstacles of

changing that is the democratic party. they like to say they are for educational opportunities. the reality is they are stopping children from getting access to a great education. i would argue this is largely him because they have been bought and paid for by teachers unions. they have been opposed to basic concepts like school choice. we don't argue there is one silver bullet. our point is that every child is different, so let's allow the parents to make the best decisions for their sons and daughters. they know the needs of their children best. i know there is fierce resistance to this idea. we had, for example, the union leader in louisiana that said parents don't have a clue when it comes to making choices for

their kids. i find this offensive and the exact opposite of the approach that we need if we are going to change education. the second thing is the quality of the teaching. we need to change how we put great teachers in classrooms. lower barriers to entry, higher barriers to retention. we need to move away from these union dominated of paying, hiring, and firing that are rewarding teachers based on how long they are breathing rather than how well they are doing. i don't repeat the data of what

a great teacher can do to improve lives. there are great things we can do to improve, reward, and encourage the best teachers and keep them in our children's classrooms. third and finally, we need to take power away from the federal government. we need to restore these decision making authorities to the local and state governments. there are a variety of ways we can do that. we talk about, for example, the current debate of no child left behind. we talk about block granting to make sure dollars benefit students instead of buildings, bricks, and mortar programs. in moving power away from the federal government, that's the debate today about common core. it makes no sense to me we would have a top-down approach to

testing and standards. it makes no sense to me that folks in d.c. know better than parents, teachers, and local leaders. rude in the beginning when people were opposed to common core, it was fashionable to dismiss them as crazy conservative right-wing radix. then it was the teachers. and now there is a third group the parents. the more people are being exposed to the way math is being taught or this idea that for the first time the federal government would be making curriculum decisions that should be made at the local level, i think the more people are exposed to common core, and more and more people are demanding it be taken out of the classrooms the more the federal government stop trying to force common core down the throats of local teachers, local parents and students. to me, it is not just repealing from common core, it is guarding against this next generation of federal take-over and content.

i am all for high standards. i think many people that advocate for common core think if you are against common core you are against standards. , i think that's ridiculous. you can be for high standards, less government control, and empowering teachers. this is what we need to do to improve education in our country. it is important for our economy. it is important to have a citizenry able to make those decisions. i'll talk about the new orleans experience, the louisiana experience. i know my time is up, so i will leave that for the questions but if we don't get to that material, i would encourage you to look through the report. there are several statistics and studies showing the benefits of choice and what it can do to improve the quality of a child's education. with that i'll stop. >> i'm going to do one and two. then we will go to jonathan kathy hunt, susan paige, and

betsy rockstein. let me ask you about education. isn't it ironic that you are discussing education given the way you cut education in louisiana? as you know, there are two tough budget pieces by "politico" and "the new york times" talking about a variety of public issues. one thing they mentioned is that your cuts have been the deepest of any state over the past eight years on a per student basis. they say there are 1,000 fewer full-time faculty members. is there an irony about ramping up education when you are cutting it. >> sure. funding has gone up to $3. 6 billion this year. we have actually not cut k through 12 education. it has gone up on a per student basis as well.

we have increased teacher salaries as well. the total higher education budget, including means of total finance is actually a little bit slightly higher than when i took office. it hasn't increased as much as k-12 education. that is true. the reality is this. just like other states during the great recession we faced an , issue of what to do with declining revenue. we also cut taxes. the largest income tax cut in my states history. we made the decision. as a result, our budget is $9 million smaller than when i took office. we have 31,000 fewer state employees than we have had in decades. we also have the strongest credit rating we have seen in decades. more importantly, our private sector economy is stronger than it has been in a generation.

for example, since i've been governor our job growth is three times the national average. our economic deproth is two -- growth is two times the national average. right now you have literally $60 billion in private sector firms coming into the state for jobs. we have made a decision to cut spending but also to grow our private sector economy. when you talk about higher education specifically, we have seen the highest graduation rates at lsu we have ever seen. we have also seen some very good things happening. we increased higher education funding by $100 million. an over $40 million investment in the w.i.s.e. fund. in part, to help meet the growing need for skilled workers in our economy. we made a conscious decision to cut spending, cut taxes, grow the private sector economy. >> "the national journal" talked to jeb bush after a speech in detroit. one of the topics was education. the governor said, "13,174

government run school systems is not the appropriate model of governans for this incredibly diverse group of kids that comprise the next generation of americans." i know you don't want the government controlling curriculum. do you think there is need for consistency in academic expectations and standards if the united states wants to compete with other nations like china? >> yes. and this is an important topic that has come up quite a bit. in my plan, i talk about the fact the pendulum has swung too far that will now instead of just the test you have the test, the pretest, and the test pre-pretest. you see a crowding out of social studies, music, and art and other subjects in our classroom. let's remember and understand, though, this testing arose for a very legitimate reason. there is legitimate concern that you had many poor students and others that were getting left

behind and weren't getting access to a good education. we were also seeing kids being promoted without mastering a years worth of material. i think the pendulum has swung too far the other way. we still say, look, when there are private tax dollars involved, we do say, yeah, we understand the need for annual testing so there is transparancy , so parents can make meaningful choices, so you can have accountability. two things should be changed. one, we call for benchmarking. there are ways you can compare a variety of tests so if a student is taking one test you can see how that student does compared to other states and even other countries. this is very important. many private schools are acustomed to using other norm reference tests instead of assuming everyone has to use the same test, benchmarking and other methods allow you for more

variety of tests. secondly, we also call for more aggressive waivers and flexibility especially for , schools that are performing well. for example, if they want to use a.p. tests or other measures to show students are learning instead of this one-size-fits-all approach for testing. yes, i think there needs to be accountability but i call for much more diversity in trusting parents. we call for letter grades. in our state, we give letter grades in the schools a through right now, some of the accountability is so complicated people don't understand how their child is doing. with a through f standards, it makes it easier for parents to know how their child is doing. yes, accountability, but yes not a one-size-fits-all approach.

>> my question is, if a republican presidential candidate supports common core should conservatives view that as a disqualifier for them seeking the presidential nomination? >> i think it will be a good debate to have. i don't think the d.c. insider should pick our candidates or say who can or cannot run. if republican voters want to vote for a candidate that supports common core, i suspect they will have that option. i also suspect if they want to vote for someone against common core, they will have that option. i think this is a good debate in the general election. what is the proper role of federal and government -- federal government? do we want to see more federal involvement in our classrooms? you will see that in the debate over common core and in no child left behind. also, the amount of funding that is given to title 1 and other interventions, how should that funding be delivered? we talk about a backpack model where the dollars intended to

benefit students, especially students with special education needs but all students, follows the child into the classroom. that is not happening. because of seniority based staffing, how differently kids with special needs are taught. all of which are factors that are supposed to result in more funding don't always get those extra dollars. to go back to common core, i think it will be healthy for the party and the country if voters get to vote for candidates they want, not against, and they have a diversity of views. i think this is important. what is the proper role of the federal government? do we trust the bureaucrats in d.c. or parents and local officials to make these decisions? i come down on the side of local teachers, local parents. not thinking it is better to have an unelected elite, a group of bureaucrats in d.c. making these decisions for us.

>> this is a two-part question. do you think jeb bush is electable in the republican primary because of his support for common core? and then my second question, i'm wondering if you think the united states should arm the ukranians. >> the great thing about america is no one decides the election but the voters. it is not up to the experts or political consultants or fund raisers to decide who gets to run. if jeb bush were decide to become a candidate, i'm sure he would be happy to make the case for his views for the electorate whether common core or other issues. if i were to run, one of the issues i would look at would be not only this issue of common core. i'm all for the repeal of getting it out of our classrooms, but also making sure there is not another intrusion

from the federal government into our classrooms. not only is it getting rid of common core, but giving block grants to the states. to me, this is a bigger issue as well. for example, in our state when , we did school choice, we did president joyce the federal , government under president obama tried to stop us. in our state 90% of the children are lower income. so i think whether someone is electable or not is up to the voters, not anyone in this room or anywhere else in d.c. what is the role of the federal government? i think that's a good debate to have. i trust parents. as for the ukraine, i am glad to see president obama and angela merkel are meeting today. i know there are people that favor the united states

providing arms and more assistance for our allies in the ukranian government. i am for that. i think we need a change. i think president putin needs to change the way he looks at ukraine. we know he went to crimea in part because he didn't fear real repercussions. many of his actions are based as the white house would lead from behind. it is not leading at all. i think it is good the german and french leaders are talking about tougher sanctions. what i worry about is even if they are successful in coming up with a new agreement with russia, with the sepratists, the reality is the last agreements have not been respected by russia or the separatists. so i think anything we can do to change the internal calculus is a good thing.

in part that can be increased , assistance to the ukranian government. i think following oil prices have also had an impact on vladimir putin's views. i think we should work with our allies, but i also think we should be arming the ukrainian government. it is long past time to do that. they are our allies. they are committed to strong relationships with the west, with europe. they are a democracy. they are a country that wants its territorial lines to be respected. i see no reason we should not arm them or work with them. at the same time, i think it is good our european allies are talking about sanctions. i think it is a good idea that the president is talking to the german chancellor today. the reason i am for providing the arms is that i think we need to change the calculation in russia.

the problem is today, our enemies do not fear us, our allies don't consistently trust us. when you look at putin's decision to go to crimea, i would argue this goes back to 2009. this president unilaterally withdrew the receptors this , president, and then secretary clinton, famously tried to reset with russia in terms of resetting that relationship that obviously didn't work. i think what putin read in all of that was weakness. what he saw from those moves is he neither feared no respected the leadership in the united states. as a result, i think he felt it was a good move for him to go into crimea. and now, you see further encouragement of the violence in eastern ukraine. i think part of the way we can provide assistance to ukraine

and also sanctions. >> thank you so much for meeting with us. >> thank you for having me. >> there is a debate in the republican party if the primary process makes it more difficult for republicans to win the election. that happened to john mccain mitt romney. jeb bush said he has to be prepared to lose the primary to win the general. do you see a tension between winning the nomination and winning the election? >> no, i think there is a concern. there is this ideal belief that if we could have fewer debates if we can have a gentler process, that would be good for the party and good for the nominee. well, you know what? democracy is messy. the donors, the political

leaders, they do not get to pick our nominee. they may not like the fact we have a deep bench. they may not like the fact that we have a number of qualified candidates, and by the way i'm partial to governors who have actually run something as opposed to our current president. i don't think we can afford more on-the-job training. i think it is better to have voters make the chice. it is better to have an open and honest debate. by the way, a tougher nominating process didn't seem to help then senator obama when he was running against senator clinton. there were people back then on the democratic side saying she should have dropped out or suspended her campaign earlier. i think the reality is the president of the united states is an extremely important job. we want these candidates to have the policy, depth, expertise character to do what is a very very difficult yet a very important job. so i think in a republican -- in the upcoming republican primary, i hope there is a fierce and open contest of ideas.

i would encourage those that get in on the democratic side to avoid the ad homymym attacks. the reality is i think republicans are concerned about the direction of our country. they are looking for big change, specific ideas, the restoration of the american dream. i'll something, we can't just be the party of no. we have to be the party of solutions. some of those ringing their hands about the nominating process, what they really mean is we just need less conservative voters less conservative candidates. i think that's nonsense. i think the reality is, america doesn't need two liberal parties. there is nothing wrong with having a principled candidate that shows the american people he can solve problems and help our country move forward. i think a lot of those folks complaining about the process are really concerned that they

really want to repeal obama care and really wants to get rid of obama care. i am glad it is not the donars the political class, i'm glad the voters get to decide. >> a little louder for the aging among us. >> last week there was a controversy concerning your office about a portrait. your chief of staff claims a blogger was race speeding by releasing a portrait of you that made you look white. i was wondering how you feel about that assessment and how you feel about the portrait and if it looks like you? >> you mean i'm not white? i'm shocked at this revelation.

i think the reality ways -- i think the left is obsessed with race. i think the dumbest thing we can do is judge people by the color of their skin. i think that the left is devoid of ideas, and this is unfortunately what they have resorted to -- name calling, dividing people by the color of their skin. this is nonsense. we are all americans. one of the great aspects of our country is that we've been a melting pot. it shouldn't matter whether you came here five minutes ago or 100 years ago, it doesn't matter. we're all americans. i'm not naive. i know any society comprised of falliable human beings is going to be imperfect. but my point is this. dividing people by the color of their skin is one of the dumbest ways to divide people. i know there have been comments. but my point is this. dividing people by the color of

their skin is one of the dumbest ways to divide people. i know there have been comments. i think it's time to move beyond silliness and comments. there was something on msnbc that made a silly comment about me and race as well after i gave a speech in london. it's all nonsense. i think it's time to move beyond this. if people don't like what i said in london, let's talk about the idea. looking at people by the color of their skin is silly. it is one of the dumbest ways to debate people i've ever heard of. >> you didn't answer my question about your chief of staff. do you agree the blogger was race-baiting by releasing the portrait of you. >> i have no idea. i didn't read the tweets. i have a state to run, i have a day job, i have three kids at home that i help my wife to raise. the whole idea is silly. the painting in question is

owned by a constituent. it will go back to this constituent. i don't think i've met the artist. the bottom line is that dividing people by their race is silly. if it helps you, you are more than welcome to put in any article that you write that i'm not white. just make sure people know that. it really doesn't bother me. >> the last time i saw you was in charlotte after the 2012 election you made a pronouncement that the republicans knees to stop being the stupid party. i would like a followup about how you think they're doing. >> i said about nine other in my top 10 list, but that's the one people seem to remember. my little boy, who's now 10, daddy, we you say a bad word on tv. we teach our kids they are not supposed to say those words, put money in the jar. i finally put a limit on it because it kept showing up on tv. we have to put a limit on this.

i think we have to be more interested in policy based solutions. it is not enough just to criticize the president, not enough just to say no. i think we still have more work to be done. it is not enough to say we want to repeal obama care, we have to talk about how we want to replace it. it is not enough for me to say i'm critical of this president's approach of trying to block the d.c. scholarship program or our scholarship program or wisconsin's under a different attack, but rather to say, how do we actually improve education? i am against common core, but offer alternatives to how to we encourage competition and quality. when it comes to energy, it is not enough to say we need to drill more, but there are other things we need to do to harness

energy at home. when it comes to foreign policy, it is not enough to criticize this president in terms of staying behind israel or stopping isis, we need real ideas of how to do that. i think there is more work to be done. i would like it to see as we enter this election cycle, i would like to see more of our candidates give serious thought to their policies or positions. people ask me all the time whether i'm thinking of running for president. i'm certainly thinking about it. but i'm also thinking of how this country should respond to the major policies in education. we have talked about education. i would hope anyone, republican or democrat, would also give serious thought to these challenges our country faces. i think we are making progress. i think we have work to do. i think the important thing is we give serious thought to the

problems facing our country, whether it is $18 trillion debt, obama care. the challenges faced by the middle class. it is more than bumper stickers, it is offering detailed ideas, and conservative ideas. we don't have to be super democrats. we don't have to be weaker versions of the other party. we can be consistent to our own principles that help the middle class know their children and grandchildren can enjoy the the american dream. >> you were talking about your interest in running for president, thinking about itand being partial to a governor as a nominee. since most governors say they want to do for the country what they do for the state, why would taking a state which had a billion dollar surplus to a state with $1.6 billion in projected deficit qualify you to run for president? >> i think it is a little more complicated than saying governor's will do for their country what they did for the state.

i think it is talking about their view of where they want to go -- the country to go. i think if you look at successful presidents,if you talk about ronald reagan democrats like to point to bill clinton, they have made real priorities as opposed to just giving good speeches, as our current president. if people want to look at my record, talk about the fiscal track record. we have actually reduced the size of the state budget $9 billion, 26% over fewer state government employers. we balance our budgeted every year without raising taxes. i think that's something we need in washington, d.c. secondly, the private sector economy. the economy has grown twice as fast as the national economy. our job growth three times the national job growth. a top five state in private

sector job creation. we have had 51 months in a row of year over year job creation in our state. we are highest ranked in every business friendly ranking publication has done, we have gone to our highest ever ranking since i've taken office. there are other metrics showing our private sector has done well. third, you look at state education reform. statewide school choice. 90% of our kids are in charter schools. we have doubled reading and nath in the last few years. when you look at the kids in the last few years going to a failing schools, it was over 65% before katrina and now it's down to 4%, record high graduation rates in our k through 12 as well as higher ed. for instance, health care, we took our charity system and done public-private partnerships going all the way back to huey long. even before that public-private partnerships. it used to take 10 days to get a prescription if you're uninsured in baton rouge. it now takes 10 minutes.

we have babies going home from the nicu with full wait. we avoided thousands of babies having to spend time in the nicu, which is great for those babies, those families, and the taxpayers. ethics reform is actually number one in the country. across the board you see a state that was, when i took office after katrina, a state with a stagnant economy, inequality in educational opportunities, 25% of people moving out of the state rather than moving in. today we have more people living in louisiana than ever before, more people working there than ever before, seven years in a row of people moving into the state as opposed to leaving the state. i think we have made big changes. most importantly though, we took on generational challenges, and

i think folks in d.c. are looking for leaders that will be honest with them, even if it looks like they will be attacked by the media and the left, they are looking for states to make big changes. i would argue this country is headed in the wrong direction right now. and needs big change. foreign policy, economic policy, and a number of other areas. and that's the short answer of my talking about lieu lieu. >> governor, thank you very much for being with us. putting on your statesman hat for a second if you could, tell us what one achievement change, barack obama's in six years you bobby jindal, most admire. >> i spent a lot of time criticizing him but there have been done in education i do support. i this administration and artie duncan and president obama both have been supportive of charter schools. i think they have been supportive in changing the way

of how we reward and hire teachers. i think they have been supportive of accountability. there have been times they have gone against what the teachers have wanted. what i would argue with is they haven't gone far enough. they do deserve credit for being in favor of charter schools, they deserve credit for new approaches to feacher hiring and firing. my biggest complaint about their approach to education is they don't go far enough. they will fine with charter schools, but they aren't really fine with full school choice. we have done a lot of things in louisiana. we lifted the cap on charter schools for people that have been successful in charter

schools, to lessen the contract, and also closed down ineffective charter schools. but that's not enough. you have to go further on teacher certification reform, and you have aappeal common core where i have been most disappointed in them is their strong support for common core. i do think they deserve credit with their support for charter schools and some of the reforms they have done in teacher evaluations. another area i would like to praise the president and first lady in specific in, joe biden as well, one of the priorities i know they have made is to help returning troops, help veterans, transition into private sector jobs. they have led the effort. they called attention to the need to, for example, reduce excessive state regulations that prevent veterans from transitioning to good paying jobs. in some instances, for example arguing that -- a specific example -- someone in the military that's had experience driving larger vehicles, making it easier for them to get a c.d.l. when they come back home and become gainfully employed. i know that is something we enacted in louisiana as a state

law as well. that is something they have been implementing, and i know that is something the president has talked about in the context of next year as well, not just for veterans but for others that face obstacles for veterans regaining employment. i am proud to say we have acted, but i know a lot of other states also have acted. they have done a good job encouraging sfates to act. i know every year they meet them, they will pass out scorecards, which states have enacted them, which haven't. i think that's a great idea. >> you talked about the role of the federal government as kind of the larger debate over common core. you are not attacking jeb bush directly, on the other hand you are kind of railing against common core supporters and the rationale behind that.

this kind of starts a larger conversation with this party, is that common core a starting point for that larger debate? >> absolutely. i think a conversation that's been going on for a long time. common core is an excellent opportunity for us to review the role of the federal government in general. i think no child left behind review is a good time to do that. i was never a fan of no child left behind. now we have a chance to reverse. look at the outcome. since 1970, you look at federal spending on education. you look at national spending. it has gone up dramatically, even as outcomes have gone largely flat. you look at nonclassroom employment, it has also doubled, even while the student population has only gone up 10%. we have seen a massive involvement of federal spending, a lot more hiring outside the classroom, and more flat

outcomes. i think the department of education's budget needs to be reduced, it needs to focus on civil rights, it needs to focus on deregulation, and then so many of its dollars need to be cut or block granted so it does not have the dollars to continue -- for example, it should be conditioned race to the top funding or no child left behind waivers. part of the problem with this administration's approach to no child left behind is they have waived adoption of this president's education reform. that is an improper use of power over what should be local decisions.

they are using the coersion of federal funding in states for incentives, and i think that's wrong. i think we will have a conversation first with the republican party and then the states, to. do we trust parents? do we make the -- we hear union leaders saying they can't trust parents. i think that is wrong. i think the better idea is to trust parents. empower them with choice. they know the needs of their kids most. they are not one of many stake holders. the parents of the children are the reason we have an educational system, so absolutely, i think that common core will be one more reason for us to have this bigger debate or conversation about the proper role of the federal government. >> could common core be one of the benchmarks for whether you

are for -- >> i think it is an important example of where folks stand not only in common core, but also the role of federal government in education. i think voters will end up making that decision. i reject the idea that someone in d.c. gets to decide what qualifies or doesn't. that's why we have this messy long nominating process so voters get to kick the tires. i hope voters will get to vote for a candidate instead of against a candidate. voters have to prioritize what's important to them, as opposed to what issues are secondary. i think limiting the role of federal government in education is very important. i think the bigger issue is the role of federal government in general. i gave a speech last week about common core. i made the point of, let's put

this in the context of, we're in a debate that some people think americans aren't smart enough to pick their own health care, they aren't smart enough to know when they have trank enough big gulps. there are some on the left that think people aren't smart enough to live their own lives and have their own freedoms. i think within that context, what is the role of government? i argue we should trust the american people is to make their own decisions and live their own lives. >> governor just a few weeks ago sitting where you are sitting, senator rubio was asked about governors as opposed to senators

being federal candidates. >> i suspect he had a different answer. >> yes. he made an interesting point, sort of unique, is that his own foreign -- his take on foreign policy would match any governor's. my question is, who do you turn to for advice on foreign policy? >> i don't want to disrespect him. my -- i'm partial to a governor because of their executive branch experience. i think the most important approach to foreign policy, i have read widely over the years, i have talked to former secretary rice, and i have read many of the writings of secretary kissinger, and many others, and i don't want to point to one source, but my point is this. i think there has been a bipartisan consensus post cold war that a stronger america leads to a safer world. our enemies need to fear us, our friends need to trust us. we need to have the military

might to deter any threats to america and to our interests. that consensus seems to be fraying in recent years. you see that i would argue that we have made too deep cuts in the pentagon's budget. you go back to secretary gates' analysis. it was the last time within the department there was a bottom up approach of what the department really needed in terms of equipment, training, and resources. unfortunately this is becoming more partisan as opposed to a bipartisan consensus. i think that a return to that traditional foreign policy of strength, of peace through strength of what we need as a

country, it is a truism, but it is a cliche. the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it. we are currently projecting to too many people less preparedness. the danger to america is we are facing more asymmetrical threats. you see the potential of one day-lewis nukes. it is knees asymmetrical threats. that would argue for a stronger and more robust ability for us to defend ourselves against the multitude of actors. i have not seen that in recent year. we have a weak foreign policy that doesn't emphasize deterring our enemies. what worries me most -- i know we talked about ukraine and russia -- what worries me the most is what happens with iran. a nuclearized iran is not only a threat to israel, it poses a threat to the free world, make no mistake, a nuclear-armed iran doesn't stop with them. we will have countries like egypt and turkey that will be able to obtain nuclear weapons. it will be hard to stop them, if

we fail to stop the iranians. i assume we have agreements with pakistan. i don't know that for a fact. they have the ability to buy that technology if they agree to. i worry what message the iranian leadership is taking from america's response to putin, from america's initial response to isis, to our failed and inconsistent process when we talk about a red line in syria and other hot spots around the world. when it comes to foreign policy, i did spend some time offering a detailed paper of where i think we ought to go. in addition to investing in our military is the need for us to remember the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it, and the best way to deter our enemies is to have the strength not only to win but to dominate

any enemy. one of the things i think the president said was right was his pivot to asia. i think he followed through on it. this idea that there are many countries in asia that are interested in working with america. some of those are traditional allies like japan. others have not been consistent allies. i think it is important that the apresident went there at an important moment. i think there are many countries in asia that want to work with america because of the rising influence of china. i think that is good for them and good for us. i think there is a bipartisan opportunity. when you look at the transatlantic opportunities. i think there is an opportunity for us to engage and strengthen our relationship with our allies. i think it is good the president talked about those trade deals ideas he could work through with the -- the idea is, that could be good for us not only

economically, but it can also help with our foreign relations as well. >> so you don't have your own kissinger advising you? >> we have a number of people and talk to and consult with. >> i prefer to talk to a wide array of people and make my own decisions. >> [indiscernible] what factors are you still weighing at this point? >> in terms of my timeline, it will be the next few months. as we were saying earlier, i think everybody is thinking

about this. who is the next president is not as important as what the next president does. we face serious challenges. this next election will be a serious election. this is a consequential election about the future direction of our country. i am not just thinking about the election but the issues and giving serious thought to where our country needs to go on energy, education, foreign policy, health care, and a number of other areas. i strongly encourage anyone else to do that. i don't know how you get into a race this important without giving serious thought to the issues. that is part of what i'm doing at this time. when i do make a decision, it will not be a secret. i'm happy to tell everybody. i will say this. for me, it will not be about fundraising or polling. it will be about restoring the american dream. i have been blessed. my parents came over 40 years ago in search of an opportunity. i feel like my brother and i have been able to live the american dream.

i want my children and grandchildren to be able to live that dream as well. we have an open primary. i am term limited. we will have an election later this fall where everybody runs against everybody. if there is not a winner in the primary, the top two would go to a runoff. we have always had a runoff with one exception, in 2007 when i won in the primary. i think it is likely we will have a runoff. a number of candidates who have announced or are considering running, on the republican side, we have a number of candidates. it is early, but i think there's a chance for the first time in our states history we could end up with two republicans in a runoff for the governor's race. there a real chance that could

happen. there are a number of credible candidates. it is too early. you have a number of candidates that have raised significant funds and are beginning to make their moves. i would encourage these candidates to make known the positions on a number of issues. we made a commitment when i was running we would not raise taxes. we put a lot of emphasis on education. i want to hear where these candidates stand to make sure they do not reverse the hard-fought gains. i think the voters will have a number of choices. we could have two republicans. the reason that is so interesting is the reason we have the open primary system, it goes back to the 1970's. edwin edwards ran against bennett johnson in a fierce race for governor. got into a runoff, beat him in the early 1970's. it was a close race. then he went on to become a senator. edwin thought this was unfair he had to run two tough elections and face this republican who had no opposition. at the time, republicans were 82% of registered voters in the state. everyone thought it was unfair

the republican did not have to compete as well, so he decided to do an open primary figuring you would have two democrats and a republican. he thought it would save time. in the short-term, it allowed the republican party to grow to about 1/4 of the voters in louisiana. when my parents came to louisiana, it was common for registrars to tell people not to register as republican. you were told with close elections, you would not get to vote because the elections are done by the time you get to vote. it gave more people an opportunity to register as republicans and allow the party to grow. the open party system for the first time produced two republicans in a runoff. even if a democrat makes it in the runoff, i don't think there is a good chance the democrat would win. i don't think that is what the state wants. when i ran the first time, there was only one statewide elected

republican. now all of them are republican. today, we have for the first time ever a majority in the house and senate. i mean since reconstruction. we have not had the majority in modern times. it could be two republicans in the runoff. >> i think that will be it. we appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> thank you for having me. >> german chancer angel merkel and president obama met at the white house. following their meeting they spoke to reporters. that's next on c-span. then remarks from vermont senator bernie sanders. later, louisiana governor bobby

jindal takes questions at a christian science monitor event. both senator sanders and governor jindal discuss possible white house runs. on our next "the wall street journal," we will talk to gerald connelly about russia relations and escalating conflict in eastern ukraine. and we will discuss whether to grant president obama new authority to fight isis in syria and iraq. later -- fisk university president will join us as part of the black college universities bus tour. join the conversation by phone, facebook and twitter. >> february is black history month and the c-span bus is on the road. visiting top historically black colleges and universities to

speak with faculty and discuss public policy issues and highlight their role in america's education system. tomorrow during "the wall street journal," we will be at fisk university in nashville and talk with h. james williams. on wednesday meet with the president of morehouse college in atlanta and on thursday visit spellman college in atlanta and talk with daniel tatum. >> president obama and german chancellor merkel repeated no decision has been made on whether to represent arm the ukrainian government. they also took questions on iran, israel and u.s.-german relations. >> good morning, everybody please be seated. as always it's a great pleasure to welcome my close friend and

partner, chancellor angel merkel, back to the white house. angel has been here many times but this visit is a chance for congratulate her on cho achievements. angel is one of germany's longest-serving chancellors. perhaps more importantly this is my first public opportunity to congratulate angel and germany on their fourth world cup title. as we saw in rio, angel is one her team's biggest fans. our u.s. team, however, gets better each world cup so watch out in 2018. germany is one of our strongest allies so whenever we meet it's an opportunity to coordinate closely on a whole range of issues critical to our shared security and prosperity. as angel and our good friends prepare to host the g7 this

spring, it's also important for us to coordinate on a set of shared goals. in a working lunch we will focus on what we can do to keep the economy growing and creating jobs. strong supporters of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership we agree there needs to be meaningful progress this year towards an agreement that boosts our economies, which has protections for consumers, workers and the environment. i look forward to hearing angel's assessment on europe and i.n.f. in the greek government that finds a way to return greece to sustainable growth within the euro zone where growth is critical to both the united states and the global economy and we will be discussing our work to get all major economies to take ambitious action on climate change, including our initiative to limit public financing for coal-fired power plants overseas and our global efforts to phase down some of the most dangerous

greenhouse gases. our discussion this morning focuses on local security issues. we reaffirm our commitment to training afghan security forces and supporting a sovereign, secure and united afghanistan. we agree the international community has to continue enforcing existing sanctions as part of our diplomatic effort to prevent iran from obtaining a numelar weapon, even as they work closely together to do everything we can to achieve a good, verifiable deal. two issues in particular that dominated our workday this morning, russia's aggression against ukraine and the international fight against isil. with regard to russia, and the separatists it supports in ukraine, it's clear they violated just about every commitment they made in the agreement. instead of withdrawing forces continue to operate there training separatists and

coordinating attacks. instead of withdrawing arms, russia has sent in more tanks and armored personnel carries and heavy artillery. separatists seized territory, destroyed villages and drove more ukrainians from their homes. these are the facts. but russian aggression that's only reinforced the unity of the united states and germany and our allies and partners around the world. and i want to thank angela for her strong leadership and partnership as she met this challenge. chancellor merkel and vice president biden met with president pore schenckio in europe over the weekend and angela shared the results of her thoughts on moscow. we encourage a diplomaticing resolution to this issue and as diplomatic efforts continue, we're in absolute agreement 291st century cannot stand idle have us stand idle and simply

allow the borders of europe to be withdrawn at the barrel of a gun. so today we will move forward with our strategy. keep bowl sistering our presence in central and eastern europe, our unwavering bargaining to the collect iffer defense and continue to work with the i.m.f. and other partners to provide ukraine with critical financial support as it pursues economic anti-corruption reforms. discuss how to assist as ukraine best defends itself and we agree sanctions on russia need to remain fully in force until russia complies fully with its obligations. even as we continue to work for a diplomatic solution, we're making it clear again today if russia continues on its current course which is ruining the russian economy and hurting the russian people as well as having such a terrible effect on

ukraine, russia's isolation will only worsen both politically and economically. with regard to isil, germany and the united states remain united in our determination to destroy this barbaric organization. i thanked angela for her strong support as member of the international coalition that is working in iraq in a significant milestone in its foreign policy, germany has taken the important step of equipping kurdish forces in iraq and germany is preparing to lead the training mission of local forces in mobile. the focus of the special session of the u.n. council i chaired last fall and under angela's leadership, germany is moving ahead with new legislation to prevent fighters from travelinging to and from syria and iraq. at the same time bonn angela and i recognize that young people in both of our countries

especially muslim communities being threatened and targed by terrorists like al qaeda and isil and protecting our young people from the hateful ideology so they're not vulnerable to such recruitment, as local communities, families, neighbors, state leaders who know their communities best but we can help these communities starting with the tone and example we set in our own countries. i want to commend angela for her leadership. her leadership speaking out forcefully zens xenophobia and prejudice and on behalf of pluralism and diversity. she made it all all religious communities have a place in germany is, just as they do here in the united states. and we're grateful our german friends will be joining us at our summit next week on countering violent extremism because this is the challenge our countries have to meet together. let me end on an historic note.

this year marks the 70th anniversary of the end of the second world war. it marks the 25th anniversary of the reunification of germany. so in a time when con nicts around the world seem imtractable, progress sometimes seems beyond grasp germany's story gives us hope. we can end wars. countries can rebuild. adversaries can become allies. walls can come down, divisions can be healed. germany's story and story of angela's life remind us when people stand united, our interests and values will ultimately prevail. as we look to the future as i prepare to visit bavaria in june, i'm grateful for my partnership with angela as americans are grateful for their partnership with the people of germany. chancellor merkel?

>> thank you president obama. i'm delighted to be back in washington. nine months ago we were here for the last time and this visit had a lot to do with first and foremost we assume the presidency of the chief and we coordinate on these necessity issues and other people would suggest issues related to the global economy when we meet in bavaria. this upper from a european vantage point, i think we can say significant progress in a number of areas. we have countries who look back on the growth pass. ireland comes to mind here and spain and portugal after a strong phase of structural reforms they have have now made significant progress and new commissions have come in and launched a growth program in which germany will participate. we will pin our hopes basically

on growth and infrastructure but also on other growth projects. for example, the economy of the state of the economy in the united states. there are a lot of things to be done by the europeans now. i would say that a free trade agreement, conclusion of free trade agreement would go a long way towards boosting growth. we know very much engaged in the pacific area there are a lot of free trade agreement there as well and germany will come out forcefully in seeing that the negotiations between the e.u. and the united states and on free trade agreements in a vigorous manner. it's in our own vested interest in the united states and german interest. we are dealing with our g-7 issue on health issues of the let me mention one. one lessons have we drawn for example, from the terrible ebola epidemic. i think one thing that we learned is the international

organizations, the international community has to be quicker in reacting. this could be a very important contribution to doing this. and we're also interested, for example, in seeing gabby be successful. we are delighted to conclude the conference that just completed in germany successfully. and dwelt with security issues this morning. is it is true germany this year celebrates 25th anniversary of its reunification. this would would not have been possible or achieveable without our transatlantic partners, without the support of united states of america and we will always be grateful for this. and it's one point -- case in point it's wellone's values to pursue long-term goals and not relent in those. after we thought in the '90's maybe things would turn out more easily, somewhat less

complicated we see ourselves confronted with a whole wealth of conflict. we worked together, we talked about this as well. germany has decided in its fight against, n.s. to give help, to deliver training missions to deliver also weapons and if necessary we work together on the iran nuclear program, where we also enter into the crucial phase of negotiations. one priority was given to the conflict between ukraine and russia this morning, we stand up for the sprainls pills of infallibility of territory integrity. as somebody whos comes from europe, would i say it gives this prince pill of -- principle of integrity of countries. and this is not any old point. it's an essential and crucial

point. russia has violated the territorial integrity of ukraine in two respects, in crimea and also donsing. so we are called upon now to come up with solutions but not in the sense of mediator but we also stand up for the interests of the european peaceful order and this is what the french president and i have been trying to do over the past few days. we're going to continue those efforts and i'm very grateful throughout the ukraine crisis, we have been in very, very close contact with the united states of america and europe on sanctions on diplomatic initiatives, and this is going to be continued. and i think that's indeed one of the most important messages we can send to russia and need to send to russia. we continue to pursuit a diplomatic solution. though we have suffered

setbacks. we will see if all sides are ready and willing to come to a negotiated settlement. i have always said don't see a military solution to this conflict. but we have to put all of our efforts in bringing about a diplomatic solution. so there's a whole host of issues that we need to discuss. over lunch we will continue to talk about climate protection, sustainability development and sustainable development goals. yet again, thank you very much for the very close cooperation, very close coordination and possibility to have an exchange with you on all of these crucial issues. i think not only hindsight can we safely say the united states has always stood by and helped us regain our unity and peace and freedom, but we can also say we continue to cooperate closely if it is about solving the conflict of the world today. unfortunately there are many of them and we will continue to do so in the future. thank you for your hospitality. >> first question, steve "the

washington post." >> thank you. you stressed europe has to deal with sanctions on ukraine and discussed sending lethal weapons to ukraine. very different from what the chancellor said over the weekend. is this a good cop/bad cop act or areal reflection of reviews of situations on the ground? more broadly if there's no agreement this week, what lies ahead? are we looking at a broader set of sanctions? what makes us think those sanctions will change the russia's president's mind any more than the current one? >> let me start with the broader point. both angela and i have

emphasized the prospect for a military solution to this problem has always been low. russia has an extraordinarily powerful military. and given the length of the is russian border with ukraine, given the history between russia and ukraine, expecting that if russia is determined that ukraine can fully rebuff a russian army has always been unlikely. but what we have said is that the international community working together can ratchet up the costs for the vling of the core principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity and that's exactly what we have done. and russia has paid a significant cost for its

actions, first in crimea and now in eastern ukraine. it has not yet dissuaded mr. putin from following the course that he is on. but it has created immeasurable negative impact on the russian economy. and that will continue. my hope is that through these diplomatic efforts those costs have become high enough that mr. putin's preferred option is for a dim ibs resolution. and i will not prevudge whether or not they will be successful. if they are successful, it will be in part because of the extraordinary patience and effort of chancellor merkel and her team. if they are not, then we will continue to raise those costs and we will not relent in that.

one of the things i'm very encouraged about is the degree to which we have been able to maintain u.s.-european unity on this issue. now, it is true if in fact diplomacy fails, what i have asked my team to do is look at all options. what other means can we put in place to change mr. putin's calculus? and the possibility of lethal defensive weapons is one of those options that's being examined. but i have not made a decision about that yet. i have consulted with not just angela but will be consulting with other allies about this issue. it's not based on the idea that ukraine could defeat a russian army that was determined it is rather to see whether or not

there are additional things we can do to help ukraine bolster its defenses in the face of separatist aggression. but i want to emphasize a decision has not yet been made. one of the bigger issues that we're also concerned with is making sure the ukrainian economy is functioning and that president pore schenckio and the prime minister can continue with the reform efforts that they have made. and i'm glad to see because of our corporation and our efforts we're starting to see a package come together with the i.m.f., with the european union and others that can help bolster the european economy so that they have the space to continue to execute some of the reforms and anti-corruption measures that they have made. one of the most important things we can do for ukraine is help them succeed economically because that's how people on the

ground feel this change, this transformation inside of ukraine. if that experiment fails, then the larger project of an independent ukraine will fail. so we're going to do everything can to help bolster that. but there's no doubt that if in fact diplomacy fails this week there's going to continue to be a strong unified response between the united states and europe. that's not going to change. there may be some areas where there are tactical disagreements. there may not be. but the raw principle we have to stand up for, not just ukraine but the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty is one where we're completely unified. >> the president and i have decided to make one further attempt to make progress through

diplomatic means. we have the minsk agreement which has never been implemented. quite the contrary, the situation has actually worsened on the ground. now there is a possibility to try to bring about a cease-fire and to also create conditions that are in place where you have not every day civilians dyeing, civil victims that fall prey to this. and i'm absolutely confident we will do this together. i, myself, actually would not be able to live with not having made this attempt. so there is anything but an assured success in all of this. i have to be very clear about this. but if at a certain point in time one has to say that a success is not possible, even if

one puts every effort into it, then the united states and europe have to fit together to try to explore further possibilities what one can do. just let me point out here that the prime ministers of the european union last week already tasked the commission to think about further possible sanctions. on the issue of what is effective and what's not i'm somewhat surprised sometimes. just let me mention iran. for a fairly long period of time we have had is sanctions in place there. people don't seem to question them. i think they have been fairly successful if we look at the current state of affairs with negotiations on the nuclear program. in parallel, i think it was a very good thing to put some costs on the is russians through these sanction that's -- sanctions that we agreed on because we see russia seems to be influenced by this. and this is why i'm 100% behind

these decisions. as to the export of arms, i have given you my opinion but you may rest assure that no matter what we decide, the alliance between the united states and europe will continue to stand, will continue to be solid even though on certain issues we may not always agree that this partnership bid on ukraine and russia, bid on combating terrorism on the international scene, be it on other issues is a partnership that has stood the test of time. in europe we're very close but this transatlantic partnership for germany and you is indispensable. this will remain so and i can say this on behalf of my colleagues in the european union. sorry, i have to call you myself.

from the german press agency. you have not yet made a decision as to whether weapons ought to be given to ukraine. what would be the red line that needs to be crossed for you to decide armament of the ukrainian army? and what do you think will hold by way of a promise because the chancellor said it will make matters worse? what could the nobody the laureate obama do more to defuse this conflict? and madam chancellor, president putin today demanded yet again the government in kiev negotiate directly with the separatists. when do you think the right moment has come to do this and with looking at all of the big issues you discussed, this breach of confidence due to the affair of the u.s.-german relations, has that played a role today? >> do you want to go first on this?

>> i can gladly start. the question asking how it effectiveness of certain measures been dealt with, the president has not yet made a decision and says what's important for me is we stand very closely together. on the question of a new renewed diplomatic effort, we keep each other informed. we're in close touch and nobody wishes more for a success than the two of us as we stand here side by side. but this would also mean not only having a cease-fire in place but also over and above that having certain rules in place. you said the russian president himself thinks there ought to be direct contact. let me point out these direct contacts already exist through the contact group with represents -- representatives.

and the problem with the last two days and last meeting was rather more than that there was not really that much of an end result, if at all, if representatives were there at all. this was for me the core of the minsk agreement, there are local elections in accordance with the ukrainian constitution and that the outcome of that is you have representatives and authorities who can speak for those regions and the ukrainian president paved the way for this and giving specific status to these provinces and they are an essential point that will enable us to say now maybe there can be contact without a trilateral group. and this is on the agenda of the many talks we need to make but i can understand the ukrainian side that on the territory that they consider to be part of

their territory is, and anything else would violate the territory integrity they want to actually see the elections take place there and that has also been stated by president putin that he wishes to see elections held there. now on the n.s.a. issue, i think there are still different assessments on individual issues there. but if we look at the shared dimension of the terrorist threat, we are more than aware of the fact we need to work together i have closely and i as german chancellor want to state here very clearly the institutions of the united states of america have provided us and still continue to provide us with a lot of very significant, very important information that also ensures our security and we don't want to do without this. there are other possibilities to continue to talk about the sort of protection of privacy versus data protection and so on

and security. but this was basically combating terrorism. >> the question providing lethal weapons to ukraine is, it's important to point out that we have been providing assistance to the ukrainian military generally. that's been part of a longstanding relationship between nato and ukraine. and our goal has not been for ukraine to be equipped to carry on offensive operations but to simply defend themselves. and the president has been clear he's not interested in escalating violence. he's interested in having his country -- his country's boundaries respected by its neighbor. so there's not going to be any specific point in which i say ah clearly lethal defensive weapons would be appropriate here.

it is our ongoing analysis of what can we do to dissuade russia from encroaching further and further on ukrainian territory? our hope is that it's done through diplomatic means. and i just want to emphasize here once again for the benefit not just to the american people but for the i just want to emphasize, we are not looking for russia to fail. we are not looking for russia to be surrounded and contained and weakened. our preference is for a strong, prosperous vibrant, confident russia. they can be a partner with us on a whole list of global challenges and that's how i operated throughout my first term in office. unfortunately, russia has made a decision that i think is bad for them strategically, bad for

europe, bad for the world. and in the face of this aggression and these bad decisions, we can't simply try to talk them out of it. we have to show them that the world is unified and imposing a cost for this aggression and that's what we're going to continue to do. with respect to the n.s.a., i'll just make this point very briefly. there's no doubt that the snowden revelations damaged impressions of germans with respect to the u.s. government and our intelligence cooperation. and what i have done over the last year, year and a half, is to systematically work through some of these issues to create

greater transparency and to restore confidence not just for germans but for our partners around the world. and we've taken some unprecedented measures. for example, to ensure that our intelligence agencies treat non-u.s. citizens in ways that are consistent with due process and their privacy concerns. something that i put in a presidential order and has not been ever done not only by our intelligence agencies but i think by most intelligence agencies around the world. there are going to be areas where we've got to work through these issues. we have to internally work through some of these issues because they're complicated. they're difficult. if we are trying to track a network that is planning to

carry out attacks in new york or berlin or paris and they're communicating primarily in cyberspace and we have the capacity to stop an attack like that but that requires us then, being able to operate within that cyberspace, how do we make sure that we're able to do that, carry out those functions while still meeting our core principles respecting the privacy of all our people. and given germany's history i recognize the sensitivities around this issue. what i would ask would be that the german people recognize that the united states has always been on the forefront of trying to promote civil liberties, that we have traditions of due process that we respect, that we have been a consistent partner of yours in the course of the

last 70 years and certainly the last 25 years in reinforcing the values that we share. and so occasionally i would like the german people to give us the benefit of the doubt, given our history, as opposed to assuming the worst assuming that we have been consistently your strong partners and that we share a common set of values, and if we have that fundamental underlying trust, there are going to be times where there are disagreements and both sides may make mistakes and there are going to be irritants like there are between friends but the underlying foundation for the relationship remains sound. christychristi parsons? >> thank you mr. president. the iran nuclear negotiators have now missed two deadlines. should the upcoming march

deadline for talks be the final one? and what are the circumstances in which you think it would be wise to extend the talks? also sir, some have suggested you are outraged by the israeli prime minister's decision to address congress. is that so? and how would you advise democrats who are considering a boycott? >> first of all, we understood, i think, from the start, when we set up the interim agreement with iran that it would take some time to work through incredibly complex issues and a huge trust deficit between the united states and iran, and the world and iran when it comes to their nuclear program. so i think there was always the assumption that, although the interim agreement lasted a certain period of time that we would probably need more time to

move forward. the good news is that there have been very serious discussions. that time has been well spent. during this period of time, issues have been clarified gaps have been narrowed, the iranians have abided by the agreement. so this is not a circumstance in which, by talking, they've been stalling and meanwhile advancing their program. to the contrary, what we know is the program has not only been frozen, but with respect to, for example, 20% enriched uranium they've reversed it so we're in a better position than we were before the interim program was set up. having said all that, the issues now are sufficiently narrowed and sufficiently clarified where we're at a point where they need to make a decision. we are presenting to them, in a unified fashion, the p5 plus one

supported by a coalition of countries around the world, are presenting to them a deal that allows them to have peaceful nuclear power but gives us the absolute assurance that is verifiable that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon, and if, in fact, what they claim is true, which is they have no aspiration to get a nuclear weapon that, in fact, according to their supreme leader, it would be coptrary -- contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon, if that is true, there should be a possibility of getting a deal. but we don't know if that's going to happen. they have their hard-liners they have their politics. and the point, i guess, is at

this juncture, i don't see a further extension being useful if they have not agreed to the basic formulation and the bottom line that the world requires to have confidence that they're not pursuing a nuclear weapon. if the framework for a deal is done. if people have a clear sense of what is required and there's some drafting and t's to cross and i's to dot, that's a different issue. but my view and i've presented this to members of congress, is that we now know enough that the issues are no longer technical. the issues now are, does iran have the political will and the desire to get a deal done. and we could not be doing this work if not for the incredible cohesion and unity that's been

shown by germany, by the other members of the p5 plus one which, i should acknowledge, includes russia. this is an area where they've actually served a constructive role. and china's served a constructive role. and there has been no cracks in this -- on the p5 plus one side of the table and i think that's a testament to the degree to which we are acting reasonably in trying to actually solve a problem. with respect to prime minister netanyahu, as i've said before, i talk to him all the time. our teams constantly coordinate. we have a practice of not meeting with leaders right before their elections two weeks before their elections. as much as i love angela, if she

was two weeks before an election she probably would not have received an invitation to the white house and i suspect she wouldn't have asked for one. so, you know, the -- so this is just -- some of this just has to do with how we do business and i think it's important for us to maintain these -- these protocols because the u.s.-israeli relationship is not about a particular party. this isn't a relationship founded on affinity between the labor party and the democratic party or likud and the republican party. this is the u.s.-israeli relationship that extends beyond parties and has to do with that

unbreakable bond that we feel and our commitment to israeli's security and the share of values that we have. and the way to preserve that is to make sure that it doesn't get clouded with what could be perceived as partisan politics, whether that's accurate or not that is a potential perception and that's something we have to guard against. now, i don't want to be coy. the prime minister and i have a very real difference around iran, iran sanctions. i have been very clear and angela agrees with me and david cameron agrees with me and the others who are a member of the negotiations agree that it does not make sense to sour the negotiations a month or two before they're about to be completed and we should play that out if, in fact, we can get a deal, then we should

embrace that. if we can't get a deal, then we'll are to make a set of decisions and as i've said to congress, i'll be the first one to work with them to apply even stronger measures against iran, but what's the rush? unless your view is that it's not possible to get a deal with iran and it shouldn't even be tested. and that i couldn't -- cannot agree with because as president of the united states i'm looking at the options should we not get a diplomatac resolution and those options are narrow and not attractive and from the perspective of u.s. interests it is far better if we can get a diplomatic solution. so there are real differences substantively but that's separate and apart from the whole issue of mr. netanyahu coming to washington.

>> ms. merkel, you just said the question is what will be effective in the ukrainian crisis and diplomacy, as you said yourself, has not really brought about that much of a progress. can you understand the impatience of the americans when they say we ought to now deliver weapons and what makes you feel confident that diplomacy will carry the day in the next few days and weeks and on greece, i have to ask you, what is your comment on the most recent comments of the greece prime minister who says let's end those programs and i'm going to stand by the promises i made you in the election campaign? how do you envisage the further cooperation with the greek government? and mr. president, i address the question, there's quite a lot of pressure by members of your government who say weapons

should be delivered to the ukrainians. you yourself said you want to ratchet up the cost that putin has to bear and then make him relent and give in maybe and you said all options have to be on the table, also weapons. what makes you so sure that these weapons will not only go into the hands of the regular ukrainian army but will then also perhaps get into the hands of separatists militias on the ukrainian side, accused by amnesty international of having violated human rights. thank you. >> whenever you have political conflicts such as the one we have now between russia and ukraine but also in many other conflicts around the world, it has always proved to be right to try again and again to solve the conflict. we've spoken at length about the

iranian conflict. here too, we are expected to try time and again and there's always a point where you say well, all of the options are on the table, we've gone back and forth but then one has to think again. looking just at the middle east conflict, for example, how many people have tried to bring about a solution to this conflict and i'm going to participate and support it every time because it's well worth the effort. when you have a situation now where every night you see people dying, you see civilian casualties, you see the dire conditions under which people live, it is incumbent upon us as politicians, we owe it to the people to explore every avenue until somebody gives in but we've grown up under conditions -- i have to point this again, where we've said, nobody would have dreamt of german unity. people who have said in west germany, remember, they said, should we keep up citizenship of

germany, they've been criticized by people, some who have ideas and think of president reagan when he said, mr. gorbachev tear down this wall, standing in front of the gate, many people said at the time how can he say that? but it was right. we have no guarantee. i captain give -- cannot give you a guarantee for the outcome of the wednesday talks or further talks and maybe nothing will come out of it and then we're called upon again to think about a new possibility and since we thought about this every step of the way, will this be effective or not, we will continue to do so. a lot of things have to be thought about and i'm very glad that with the american president, i have always been able to put all of the cards on the table and discuss the pros and cons. in my speech in munich, i give give -- gave you a clear view of where i stand but we'll continue to try it. that's why we're politicians.

that's why we chose this profession. others have to do other things. researchers have to all the time find other things to explore and the wellbeing and prosperity of our people isn't sure but we never have a guarantee that the policies we adopt -- i'm sorry greece. on wednesday, there's going to be a euro group meeting. and i think what counts is what greece will put on the table. at that euro group meeting or perhaps a few days later. the german policy ever since 2010 has been aimed at greece staying a member of the euro zone. i've said this time and again. and the basic rules have always been the same. you put in your own efforts and on the other side you're being shown solidarity, quid pro quo. the three institutions of the

troika, the e.c.b., the european central bank and the i.m.f. have agreed these programs are the basis of any discussion we have. i've always said, i will wait for greece to come with a sustainable proposal and then we'll talk about this. >> the point angela made i think is right which is we never have guarantees that any particular course of action works. as i've said before, by the times a decision reaches my desk, by definition, it's a hard problem with no easy answers, otherwise somebody else would have solved it and i would never even hear about it. the issue that you raid about can we be certain that any lethal aid that we provide ukraine is used properly,

doesn't fall into the wrong hands, does not lead to overaggressive actions that cannot be sustained by the ukrainians, what kinds of reactions does it prompt not simply from separatists but the russians, those are issues that have to be considered. the measure by which i make these decisions is, is it more likely to be effective than not? that's what our deliberations will be about. but what i do know is this -- that the united states and europe have not stood idly by. we've made enormous efforts, enormous investments of dollars, political capital, of diplomacy

in trying to resolve this situation. i think the ukrainian people can feel confident we have stood by them. people like vice president biden and secretary of state kerry have spent countless hours on this issue, as has angela and her team on the german side. and just because we have not yet gotten the outcome we want doesn't mean this pressure is not, over time, making a difference. i think it is fair to say there are those inside russia who recognize this has been a disastrous course for the russian economy, i think mr. putin is factoring that in, but understandably, until the situation is entirely resolved we will have to keep trying different things to see if we

can get a better outcome. what i do know is we will not be able to succeed unless we maintain the strong transatlantic solidarity that's been the hallmark of our national security throughout the last 70 years. i am confident i have a great partner in angela maintaining that. thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> next, senator bernie sanders discusses the economy, tax reform and college affordability. the vermont independent also talks about a possible white house run and he weighs in on israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu's scheduled address to congress in march.

the brookings institution hosted this event. >> it's a great honor to welcome senator bernie sanders as part of our ongoing conversation on the future of our economy and shared economic growth. for those of you out there who want to comment on twitter the #sandersatbrookings. i want to say at the outset before i do the formal part of the introduction that it is a pleasure to welcome a self-described proud democratic socialist here to brookings.

you know, these days the word "socialist" is thrown around as an epiat that, and the socialists i know are insulted when president obama's called a socialist because they argue he is too moderate to be a democratic socialist. but the thing we forget is the vibrancy of the democratic socialist tradition in the united states. and bear in mind we're talking democratic, small d socialist, ie, scandinavia, not the old soviet union. and in the american tradition, we're talking about people from eugene debs to norman thomas to michael harrington to people today like barbara aaronwright. this is a lively american tradition that has influenced policy in our country in a great many ways. and so it is refreshing to see to have a senator who doesn't run away from a particular part of our american tradition. senator sanders is the junior united states senator from

vermont. he's spent 16 years in the house of representatives, the longest-serving independent member of congress in american history. he's devoted his career to public service. addressing the growing income gap and shrinking american middle class. he's also been a strong advocate for rebuilding our nation's infrastructure and protecting our environment. he was also the mayor of burlington, and he is the ranking member of the senate budget committee and former chair of the senate committee on veterans affairs. and i just want to note that we sort of worry a lot these days about congress being able to do nothing. and i think it's worth noting that when two sides are willing to seek agreement and are willing to recognize the urgency of government action, you can actually have things happen. and very recently senate -- senators sanders, with senator mccain and others, negotiated a very comprehensive bill to deal with the problems

in the v.a. medical system. so when we have senator sanders and senator mccain working together, we can produce miracles in public policy. and while senator sanders will not be talking about miracles today, i will close by saying that he is a fan of pope francis. welcome bernie sanders. [applause] >> well, let me begin by thanking brookings for hosting this event and thank e.j. for moderating and thank all of you for being here this morning. before i begin my remarks in trying to explain what's going on in our country and where i think we should be going, let me say a few words about myself because my journey and how i got

here is, to say the least, a little bit different than many others who have been on this platform. i was born in brooklyn, new york, in 1941. my father came to this country at the age of 17 without a penny in his pocket and without much of an education. my mother graduated high school in new york. my family was never really poor. my dad was a paint salesman. he never made much money. my mother's dream was to get out of the three-and-a-half room rent-controlled apartment that we lived in throughout my entire life, but we never made it out she never lived to see that dream. and what i learned as a kid is what lack of money does to a family. and the kind of stress and pressures that a family that doesn't have the money they need, what happens to them. and that's a lesson that i have never forgotten.

my wife jane and i have been married for 27 years, we have four kids and seven grandchildren. and without being overly dramatic, the truth is that my involvement in politics has everything to do with what kind of country i hope that they will be living in. as the longest-serving independent in american congressional history, let me very briefly describe my political journey which is an unusual one. i first came to vermont in 1964. in 1971 there was a special election to replace a senator from vermont who had passed away. and i ran for the united states senate on a third party called the liberty union party, and i received 2% of the vote. next year i ran for governor of the state of vermont, and i received 1% of the vote. [laughter] i was on the move, heading down.

[laughter] two years later, i ran for the senate. tom leahy remembers that race because i ran against him. i received 4% of the vote, and then i ran for governor in 1976 and received 6% of the vote. then i decided to give the good people of the state of vermont a break, and i stopped running for office. but five years later some friends of mine suggested that i could do well in a race for mayor of the city of burlington which, as you know, is the largest city in the state of vermont. and in that race, i ran against a five-term incumbent, a democratic mayor. i ran as an independent, and nobody but nobody thought that we had a chance to win. nobody. in that very remarkable election -- and the point i want to make to you is a profound political lesson that i learned -- we did what is not done terribly much today, we did coalition

politics. and that is, we put together an extraordinary coalition of workers and unions, of environmentalists, of neighborhood activists, of low income organizations. very first press conference i had was at a low income housing project of women's groups, of college students. that's the coalition we put together. and that type of politics, bringing people together around the progressive agenda is something that i believe was right then and i believe is right today. i should also state that that campaign for mayor cost something like $4,000, and in the process i personally knocked on thousands of doors in the city. on election night when the votes were counted, we won the golden wards of the city --

working-class wards over the city by two to one, and we won the election by all of 14 votes. it was, in fact, the biggest political upset in vermont history. and after the recount, the margin of victory was reduced to 10 votes. now, without going into any great lengths sharehere -- actually there have been books written about this -- i took office with 11 out of the 13 members of the city council, those were the democrats and the republican, in very, very strong opposition to my agenda. and trust me, if you think that the republicans have been obstructionists to the president obama, you ain't seen nothing with what happened in my first year as mayor of the city of burlington. but what happened, and this is also a lesson that i've never forgotten, by doing what we could do despite the opposition and reaching out to people, what happened is a year later the slate of candidates that i supported won a huge victory